When I see the fervor of Sarah Palin’s fans — and by no means just those who swell the adoring crowds who go to her public appearances — I am convinced that the question is not, “How can she win the GOP nomination?” but “How can she not win it?” When you have anywhere between five and fifteen GOP candidates, all expressing basically the same conservative views, how can anyone other than the only one with the passionate fan base possibly win? And yet: Reading between the lines of what conservative-movement people are saying and writing, there is a great deal of worry about the prospect of a Palin nomination. I would summarize the GOP political writers’ consensus as follows: She must never be criticized, and she must never be nominated.
The most basic underpinning for this view is the notion that she can’t beat Obama, and I think this is a profoundly mistaken assumption. It is based on a too-abstract understanding of the qualifications for the presidency: It holds Palin up against an ideal presidential résumé, and finds her inadequate — which is true enough, but neither fair nor quite relevant. It’s important to remember that in a 2012 general election, she would be confronting not an ideal presidential profile, but an all-too-human flesh-and-blood opponent. The choice between Palin and Obama, phrased in the least flattering (to Palin) possible way, is a choice between a woman who may turn out to be seriously inadequate to the job and, therefore, become a failed president; and a man who has already convincingly demonstrated that he is seriously inadequate to the job and, therefore, already is a failed president. This rather changes the “electability” issue, doesn’t it?
I talked to a savvy GOP politico early this evening, who told me that he believed the Palinmania of her backers — which, as I said above, I consider the gamebreaker for the primaries — will peter out once she goes to Iowa or New Hampshire for the umpteenth time. At that point, he said, she will be seen as just another candidate, and therefore judged on a more even playing field. This commentator knows politics much better than I do, but I remain unconvinced. So far, every gaffe Palin has made and every attack she has endured have only soldered her supporters more securely to her cause. At this point, I think the only way this bond could be broken is through something politically nuclear — the equivalent of Lonesome Rhodes’s famous meltdown at the end of the great 1957 movie, A Face in the Crowd. And anybody who is seriously hoping that, right before the New Hampshire primary, a tape will be released on which Palin is heard referring to Granite State voters as “idiots, morons, and guinea pigs” — well, let me just say that such a person would be letting his hatred of Palin eclipse his common sense.
No, I think the only way Palin will not be the GOP nominee is if she finds a safe, face-saving way to exit the race before the primaries. Some of her supporters may well be working on it: Here is an op-ed, non-ironically titled “Is Sarah Palin Too Good to Be President?” The author says:
Simply, the confines of the presidency may prove too narrow for a name that scales new heights (or, to some, plumbs new depths) in ubiquity and provocation. . . . The iconic images of Sarah the moose-hunter and fisher-woman (many courtesy of her hit TLC show Sarah Palin’s Alaska) and Sarah the tireless, principled and so gosh-darned unpolished campaigner and pundit do not mesh with the duties of the policy wonk in chief, navigating the political terrain, working within the constraints of a one-industry town and facing retirement and decline after a four or eight year apex of public service. Likewise, Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican president with progressive leanings, is as beloved today for his bluster, manliness and war record as he is for his presidential term from 1901-1909.
So she may decide to settle for being a beloved, world-historical figure like TR, and leave the presidency to lesser men (or women!). But there was another politician who faced a similar choice, four years ago: I could be content with the adoring crowds, the bestselling books, the ideological media applauding my every move — or I could go for the presidency. We all know the choice Barack Obama made; and I somehow don’t think — all “quitter” gibes to the contrary — that Sarah Palin has any less fight in her than her fellow basketball player in the Oval Office.
There’s going to be some more split lips before this one’s over.
Shall we name it: "Palin Predicament Panic"? (coined now, by me)
I am getting a big kick out of the wave of uncertainty, the flailing, the hand wringing, the tut-tut'ing, and the general "we dont know what to do about her" fear.
I am LOVING it.
Mitt's people are discovering slander doesn't work.
Huckabee laments that Palin prays too.
Gingrich has assumed the mantle of moderate alternative.
And poor Jeb Bush says- "Its too soon, they still remember my brother."
What a fun two years its going to be; especially when Mitt gives his "But....its MY turn!" speech, right before Palin goes over the top at the Convention.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe greatest asset Palin has is the same one Reagan had: they both had to fight their own Party to get where they were/are. People appreciate a fighter. She didn't quit the Governorship, rather she vacated one title to pursue another, a fighter seeking a greater challenge and serving the nation at the same time. I am biased but do not underestimate this woman any more than you would underestimate Reagan.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI would follow her.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCome on man!
Post election Gallup Poll:
PRINCETON, NJ -- More than half of Americans, 52%, now view Sarah Palin unfavorably, the highest percentage holding a negative opinion of the former Alaska governor in Gallup polling since Sen. John McCain tapped her as the 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee. Her 40% favorable rating ties her lowest favorable score, recorded just over a year ago.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI love Sarah Palin. I love her feistiness, zest for life, unbending optimism and the amazing ability to laugh off all attacks.
But I don't know if I could vote for her to be my President.
But I also don't know if I could vote for any of the others either.
However, she should not be taken for granted. I think part of what drives liberals and critics crazy is that after 2 years of constant attacks, they haven't had any effect.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI won't be supporting Palin for the nomination, but I enjoy how she upsets all the right people in both parties.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere is an easy way out of this 'Palin problem' that the GOP elites seem to have: Let the GOP primary voters decide: Don't try to 'game' the system with an odd primary schedule, nor claim the race is over when it is not, nor arbitrarily claim (after 2 or 3 small-state votes) that the race is down only to the top two contenders. It would be still better (and more truly democratic) if so many GOP primaries were not "winner-take-all."
All of the above would lead to a truly exciting nomination process, which might even go all the way to the convention - which was the original idea. I remember the '52 GOP convention. My parents (Dad was a WWII carrier pilot) liked Ike; I (at 10) was for Taft. Perhaps conservatives are born, not made.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Fan base"? Nice to know what you think about us!
I think you're all wet. Palin will do fine as president. She's got the right principles, so most of the time her choices will be obvious and very good. Sure, she'll make mistakes, but she'll never make really bad can't ever be fixed mistakes because her principles.
The thing you guys don't get is that your preferred candidates will always make big, unfixable mistakes because they have no core principles other than getting elected.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse“The era of Ronald Reagan is over !” Jeb Bush the Reagan Slayer
External Link
Jeb Bush 2012 ! The Reagan Slayer.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI thought Palin was the better half of the GOP ticket in the last election, but I think she was picked too early in her career. If she hadn't been picked, then she and her family would not have been the focus of so much negative media attention, and she would not have resigned as governor. She would have completed her term as a popular governor, and probably been easily reelected. Maybe she would have challenged Murkowski for the Senate seat and won. After a few years as Senator (and a few years of prepping on national issues as she readied herself for a Presidential campaign) she would have been perfectly positioned for the GOP nomination.
Even though I think that would have been the best path, I could still have supported in the GOP primaries if she had completed her term as governor. But for me, her stepping down as governor of Alaska seems an issue that is too easily exploited by her opponents. "The Presidency isn't a job you can just walk away from when the going gets tough," they'll say. "And it's certainly not any easier than being a governor."
I think Palin has been doing great work for conservative candidates and the GOP since she resigned as governor, and I'm happy to have her on our side, but I think she's fatally flawed as a candidate. (At least until all her kids are grown up, at which point she could say that while the needs of her family took precedence when she was governor, the situation has changed.)
If she's the nominee, I'll vote for her. But I don't think she can win enough independents, even against Obama in 2012.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe straightforward political reason political commentators know she would have a hard time beating Obama is because of her stratospheric unfavorables.
I haven't looked in the last week or so, but among Democrats and independents they've been higher than Obama's by double digits for more than a year.
She's a talented politician and may find a way to overcome this, but I sincerely doubt she can do it with the same media strategy she's currently pursuing.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell done Mike - your post is imbibed with all the trademark delusion one would expect of a Palinite.
Comparing Sarah to TR??? Really??? One was a historian, decorated soldier, police commissioner, Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Governor, Vice President, and Nobel Prize-winning-President; the other is a reality star who quit as governor of the 4th smallest (by population) state after 16 months and can't find a coherent thought with two hands and a flashlight. You're right, the similarities are astounding.
Mr. Poterma's post is Exhibit A that Palin supporters are completely out of touch with reality. Palin is a ticket to electoral oblivion, and that's incontrovertible.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSarah Palin's nomination to run for the presidency would be a bad thing. This isn't her fault, and it isn't exactly even her doing. Like Dan Quayle, the unfair narrative has been written about her. And she plays to this narrative.
I was among the ardent defenders of her when she was picked for VP. And I still believe she got a raw deal.
But for me to support Sarah as a true GOP figurehead, she has got to get some policy gravitas. Playing the "I feel ya, Grizzly moms!" card is genuine, but only gets you so far. Time after time, even on sympathetic shows like Hannity or Fox News, Palin just cannot articulate a conservative position beyond the talking points she prepared for the segment. That just isn't going to work.
I get it. Sarah is a great woman. She has had it rough both in and out of the party. But GOP'ers can't get sucked in by this victim complex. It is possible that she had an unfair deal AND she also isn't what we need for the GOP.
And that's the unfortunate conclusion I've come to. Sarah is a great person and a great contributor. Would I prefer her to Obama? Of COURSE. (Thanks for that false dilemma, Rush.) But there are so many better candidates out there that we could focus on.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePublius,
Your sneering condescension is getting really old. Unless you have something to contribute (like...an idea!) why not give it a rest? You disagree. We get it. Move along, Nabob.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSarah Palin will easily win the nomination and go on to the worst electoral defeat since GHWB in '92. She'll lose and she'll lose convincingly but it won't be a Mondale or Carter type defeat only because of Obama's own unpopularity as well as the fixed polarity that has had a death grip on the electorate for the last three cycles. People are going to vote for the incumbent, and they'll be absolutely sick about it.
Because a significant percentage of conservative voters refuse to learn the lessons of O'Donnell, Angle or Miller, the GOP is going to hand to Obama his reelection on a silver platter .
To unseat the most sparsely qualified President in the modern era, we are going to nominate someone who is at least as sparsely qualified as Obama himself. It's insanity, but it is what it is.
Great conservative candidates can win national elections, but they have to be truly great - great message, great optimism, great patience, great humility and great communication skills. Why? Because a conservative has to overcome so much more than a liberal. It's not easy. Sarah Palin is many things, but she's sadly not enough of the things that it takes for a conservative candidate to win nationally.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf he was healthy, Dick Cheney would be the only person able to beat Palin in the GOP primary. I hope that she won't run, not because I don't think that she would win against Obama, but because I think that there sales people available for selling free market policies to the masses, but Palin would still be better than Romney or Huck.
Best way for a minor candidate (e.g., Mitch or Timmy) to make a splash with the Tea Party: Go around the country trying to get state legislatures to pass a resolution to have a constitutional convention to develop pro-federalism amendments (e.g., repeal amendment, commerse clause narrowing amendment, etc.). If they get a few state legislatures to do so, it would make that person a leader of the Tea Party movement and thus a natural counter balance to Palin.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI was a fan of Sarah Palin, and supported her nomination for the Vice Presidency.
However, quitting in the middle of her term as Governor left me firmly convinced that she is not serious about the responsibilities of Office, and thus unfit for the Presidency.
She has a role to play, but it is not as Commander-and-Chief. I hope that I am never faced with having to make a decision of whether or not to vote for her for the Presidency.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTo divine her presidential intentions, does anyone really believe they can do better than to just listen to what the woman says?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYeah, Palin will lose in a landslide, she is simple-minded, etc, etc, etc. I've heard this spiel before:
“National opinion polls continue to show Carter leading Reagan by an apparently comfortable margin of about 25%. They also show that more moderate Republicans like Ford would run better against the President. This suggests that Reagan is not the strongest G.O.P. choice for the November election and that he clearly faces an uphill battle."
"Party operatives are plainly unhappy with his selection. In Massachusetts, where both Bush and Anderson defeated Reagan, party leaders are not yet reconciled to the Reagan candidacy. Says one: “There’s a vacuum of leadership at the national level; and what appears to be the Republican Party’s response? A 69-year-old man who has done virtually nothing for years."
"Reagan has a history of committing rhetorical blunders that drive away voters. His quest in 1976 was damaged when he suggested vaguely, without proper research and consideration, that $90 billion in federal programs should be turned back to the states. He then spent months explaining that the affected programs would not be eliminated, only transferred. As Governor, Reagan was outraged by student unrest and once proclaimed: "The state of California has no business subsidizing intellectual curiosity."
"Worse perhaps than the verbal gaffe is Reagan's relentlessly simple-minded discussion of complex problems. He is aware that he is charged with this failing, and in his 1967 inaugural address on becoming Governor of California, he asserted: "We have been told there are no simple answers to complex problems. Well, the truth is there are simple answers, just not easy ones."
Time Magazine - March 31, 1980
Here's some advice to people who don't want Palin as the nominee:
1. Instead of attacking Palin, try to argue FOR whom you would like to see win the nomination instead.
2. Donate to & volunteer for that person.
Like Potemra stated, attacks on Palin only make her support even stronger. The latest PPP poll has her in the primary lead for the first time nationally, with increasing support among both moderate and conservative Republicans. These numbers will only improve if/when or when the attacks on her intensify.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseComparing Palin to Reagan is an insult to a Reagan. Reagan had as his greatest asset that liberals thought he was unqualified, unthoughtful, and just plain stupid, and therefore dismissed him, even though he actually was accomplished and had deeply thought about the issues and conservative values. His plain-spoken nature made liberals hate him and ignore his actual talents.
Palin may have the same talent for communication, but if anyone has any evidence that behind her ability to motivate and give a speech that she actually has thought about policy and conservative ideas beyond the platitudinal and would have the ability to be an accomplished chief executive, I'd like to see it. Having one unqualified President doesn't justify nominating another.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse